02. BA260032 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
69820 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260032 – Loeks Property Variance Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 (cont. from May 14 hearing) Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Lance Loeks Property Owner: Lance and Angela Loeks Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed wall height of 21’ where 8’ is the maximum permitted per MCZO Article 811.5.4. Site Location: APN 200-93-644 @ 14607 N Cameo Drive – Cameo Dr. and Boswell Blvd., in the Sun City area Site Size: 10,556 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1 - 6 SC Open Violation: V2501809 Background: 1. June 15, 1970: The lot is platted as unit 644 of Sun City Unit 25. The existing residence is constructed the following year. 2. May 21, 2019: The homeowner takes possession of the property via MCR-20190373175. 3. November 10, 2025: A violation, V2501809, is initiated after neighbor complaint regarding the homeowner erecting a 21’ netted fence on the southeast corner of the parcel aligned with the fairway of the neighboring Palmbrook Golf Club. 4. April 8, 2026: The homeowner applies for the subject variance request to allow for the netted fence to remain in place. 5. May 14, 2026: The case is heard at the Board of Adjustment with the Board voting to continue the case to allow for negotiations between the applicant and the Sun City Homeowner’s Association (SCHOA). 6. June 4, 2026: SCHOA provides a letter to staff and the applicant indicating their continued belief that the large-scale netting is inconsistent with Sun City’s CC&Rs and have concerns about setting a community-wide precedent that will permanently alter the character of Sun City and Sun City West. Page 2 of 9 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence North: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence South: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence East: R1-6 SC / Palmbrook Golf Club West: N Cameo Dr then R1-6 SC / Single-family residence Variance Request: 8. The homeowner proposes to allow the 21’ netted fence to remain in place to protect his property from errant golf balls. The property sits west of the fairway on a dogleg, which makes the home particularly vulnerable to ball strikes. The applicant has provided photos of damage to the side of the home, the rooftop solar panels, and the pool patio. 9. The net is intended to safely deflect balls away from the property. Since the fence was erected in fall 2025, however, it has had the unintended effect of redirecting several balls onto the neighboring property to the south. The applicant states that the neighbor has left the balls in his yard rather than returning them or raising any concerns. If approved, the variance would run with the subject property in perpetuity, meaning neighboring properties could be affected by errant balls indefinitely from the subject property. The property would also remain subject to SCHOA regulations, which apply independently of any County zoning or permitting requirements. 10. While sympathetic to the homeowner’s situation, staff cannot support a structure that permanently shifts the burden of errant golf balls onto an adjacent property. Staff encourages the applicant to work with Sun City authorities on a comprehensive solution for homes adjoining the golf courses in Sun City and Sun City West. 11. Since the 5/14/26 Board of Adjustment hearing, the applicant and SCHOA have attempted to negotiate a compromise regarding the net. However, these negotiations appear to have failed to bring about a negotiated settlement. Staff has included these correspondences with this updated staff report. No new information has been provided since the previous report. Although the applicant may present at the hearing evidence that the netting rather than deflect golf balls onto neighboring property is designed to drop balls at the base of the net, no such documenting material has been provided. Excerpt from proposed site plan, oriented from the west looking east. The golf course tee box is to the south. Page 3 of 9 Photograph of fence taken from the southern neighbor’s yard north towards the subject site (showing the fence in question) Page 4 of 9 Photograph of side of subject site’s residence. The blue marks represent golf ball impacts. Photographs of damaged solar panels on roof of subject site’s residence. Site Analysis: 12. The site is fully developed and is of a similar topography and design to virtually all the homes within this section of Sun City. The golf course is located to the east of the property. Page 5 of 9 2026 aerial photo of subject site. The net is visible in the lower right corner. Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 6 of 9 Eagle view of subject site looking west into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/3/21). Zoning District map of the R1-6 zoning district. Page 7 of 9 Zoning District Standard: 13. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard R1-6 SC Zoning District Proposed with Variance Max. allowed fencing height outside principal building envelope (MCZO 811.5.4) 8-feet 21-feet Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.” 14. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “The property is located 238 yards from the 17th hole tee box of Palmbrook Golf Course, situated at the exterior apex of a curve that places it in the high-velocity landing zone for amateur golfers. As shown in SITE-PLAN-1 in the Trajectory Analysis, a 250-yard drive maintains a descending height of 17.9 feet as the golf ball crosses the property boundary. Because this is more than double the 8- foot structure height limit mandated by Section 811.5.4 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, the ordinance is physically incapable of preventing projectiles from entering the residential area. The 21-foot protective golf net is the necessary height required to mitigate this site-specific physical hazard. The affected Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 8 – General Regulations Section 811 – Additional Height Regulations Article 811.5. Fences, Walls, and Retaining Walls Sub article 811.5.4. Single-family and Multi-family zoning districts, Paragraph 2, "Fences, hedges or walls located outside of the lot's buildable area, but not within the required front yard, shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet as measured from finished grade, or as measured from the top of an integral retaining wall. This height shall include any columns, decorative caps, and light fixtures."” 15. Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance are applied. Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. Page 8 of 9 “Strict enforcement of the 8-foot zoning ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship by denying the owner the ability to block documented physical hazards. Golf balls entering the property at a 40- degree descending trajectory easily clear an 8-foot wall, reaching a height of 17.9 feet at the property line. This peculiar condition has resulted in significant personal injury and structural damage (see PHOT-DETL-1). The 21-foot net is a safety utility that addresses these external forces; without a variance, the 8-foot limit leaves a "Safety Gap" that renders the property unsafe for its intended residential use” 16. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. “Granting this variance preserves the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to regulate neighborhood aesthetics and maintain open sightlines. Unlike a masonry wall or wooden fence, the proposed protective netting is 93% transparent and utilizes slim-profile poles, ensuring that the "open space" feel intended by the height restrictions is maintained. The ordinance's intent is to prevent "spite walls" or bulky obstructions; this request is for a safety utility. By allowing a material (polyester netting) that was not widely contemplated when the 8-foot limit was drafted, the Board is providing for modern safety needs without compromising the aesthetic spirit of Sun City. This is consistent with neighboring jurisdictions (e.g., Fountain Hills Section 5.09) that distinguish "protective netting" from "boundary fencing" to balance safety with zoning harmony.” Findings: 17. The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self- imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the property without the variance. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 18. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: Page 9 of 9 • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition unique to the subject property different that other lots in this zoning district bordering the golf course fairway. Exposure to errant golf balls is a common condition for homes adjoining the course. Other avenues remain available to the applicant. These may include erecting the proposed fence within the lot’s principal building envelopment which would permit structure height up to 35’, or coordinating with other property owners and local community associations to address the homeowner’s concerns with errant golf balls. • The proposed remedy unduly burdens the southern neighboring property. Staff cannot support a variance that resolves one property’s condition by arguably imposing a harmful condition on another. The errant golf balls are redirected off the wall into the neighboring property. 19. And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: a) Variance approval establishes a 21’ maximum fence height outside the principal building envelope along or proximate to the south lot line for APN 200-93-644. Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Photos (8 pages) Site Plan (3 pages) Opposition (7 pages) 5/13/26 Handout Memo (8 pages) 7/7/26 Handout Memo (13 pages) (Correspondence between SCHOA, staff, and the applicant) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:32 AM BA260032 Application Name: Legal Description Loeks Residential Variance Applicant Case Address 3N 1E 9 Lance Loeks 14607 N CAMEO DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:200-93-644 (253) 939-2744 SUN CITY, AZ 85351 Map scale 1:334 Supervisor District No. Variance for Protective Golf Netting Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet /24 RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION FORM ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE REQUEST Description of Request: Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: Related Case Number(s): PROPERTY INFORMATION Address (if known): General Location (include nearest city/town): Size in Acres: Square Feet: Legal Description: Section: Township: Range: Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): Subdivision Name (if applicable): Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION I (property owner) authorize (applicant’s name) to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER – SIGNATURE REQUIRED The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application. The property owner further acknowledges that it is the property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application. Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. Property Owner Signature: Date: INSPECTIONS By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION – SIGNATURE REQUIRED I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded. Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: Date: ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as amended. Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE ARS §11-816 B.2 The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance when, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. 1. Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be varied. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose a hardship on the property. 2. Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is not self-created in the line of title. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 3. Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. *Additional sheets may be attached. ** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION Variance Application Packet Description: Looking in - Front of house Direction Picture Faces: East Location Picture Taken: West side of N Cameo Dr Description: Looking out - View from front of house Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Front of house, by garage door Description: Looking out - Side yard Direction Picture Faces: South Location Picture Taken: Back yard Description: Looking in – Back side yard Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: South corner of neighbor’s yard Note: Neighbor has not occupied house for a while and has not picked up any errant golf balls. If you zoom in you can see the large quantity of golf balls (15 visible in photo) which landed in their yard Description: Looking in – Back yard Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Golf course, facing house Description: Looking out – back yard Direction Picture Faces: East Location Picture Taken: Back yard, near house Note: Golfers constantly hit errant balls near house and away from fairway Description: Looking out – North side of back yard Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: Back yard, near side yard Description: Looking in – North side of back yard Direction Picture Faces: South Location Picture Taken: North corner of neighbor’s yard Description: Looking in – South Wall Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: South Side Yard Information: Blue tape marks 24 stucco repairs due to golf ball impact. 2019 to 2025 Description: Looking in – Patio Post Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: Covered Patio Information: Blue tape marks 2 stucco repairs due to golf ball impact. 2019 to 2025 Description: Looking in – Solar Panel Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: Down from roof Location Picture Taken: Roof Information: Five golf ball impacts to solar panels Description: Looking in – Solar Tube Lens Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: Down from roof Location Picture Taken: Roof Information: Golf ball impact broke solar tube lens Description: Looking in – Pergola Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: Down from roof Location Picture Taken: Roof Information: Blue circles show location of Golf ball impact damage Pergola installed in 2024, photo shows two years of damage (19 locations) Description: Looking in – Gutter Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Covered Patio Information: Example of golf ball impact damage to gutter, identified by blue circle Multiple incidences Description: Looking in – Window Frame Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Covered Patio Information: Broken Window Frame identified by blue circle Description: Looking in – Pool Tile Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: Pool Information: Shatter blue tile identified by blue circle N S E W Pool Putting Green Pergola Covered Patio Residence Pool Equip Planter Planter Tree Tree Tree Driveway Sidewalk -4 Sidewalk - 4 Street – N Cameo Dr Palmbrook Golf Course General Direction of Errant Golf Balls Entering Property 5’ Fence Around Back Yard 7 9.75 3 4.75 14 25.25 21.25 61 40.5 44.5 40 20.25 30 14 21.5 14 29 Protective Golf Netting – 21’ 89 60 130 13.5 12 17 18 39.5 11.5 9.75 2 9.25 11.75 4 14 2 9 9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 8 5 1.25 3.25 6 3 3 3 5 5.5 1” = 15’ 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 SCALE IN FEET VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N Boswell Blvd W Raintree Dr W Rolling Hills Dr W Newport Dr N Shiprock Dr N Cameo Dr THIS SITE N Garage 19.5 46.25 Parcel No.: 200-93-644 Owner: Loeks (Paper Size 11 x 17) Page 1 of 3 238 Yards (713 Feet) From Tee to House 200 Yards From Tee 250 Yards From Tee Most amateur golfers hit a golf ball within the 200 - 250 yard range Putting Green Tee For Hole #17 558 Yards Map is copied from Google Maps 1” = 200 Feet Scale in Feet 0 200 400 600 North This Site Parcel No.: 200-93-644 Owner: Loeks Palmbrook Golf Course Hole Number 17 Hole number 17 is a “dog leg” left. The ideal first shot to the center of the fairway is 256 yards (slight NE direction). The ideal second shot toward the green is 239 yards (slight NW direction). The fairway curves to the left, i.e. dog leg left. The ideal third shot is a 63 yard chip shot onto the green. Note that a straight golf shot from the tee towards the green (avoiding the curve) causes the errant golf ball to land in a zone nearest the affected site. Page 2 of 3 For average shots from the tee, 250 yards represents a standard "long" distance for many amateur golfers. At the property line, which is approximately 238 yards from the tee box, a ball traveling this distance is approximately 17.9 feet in the air. Page 3 of 3 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. Always validate the sender first. Outlook Plan Number: BA260032: Variance for Protective Golf Netting From hmmarie74 <hmmarie74@protonmail.com> Date Mon 4/27/2026 12:21 PM To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> (This email is resent because first email was incomplete and accidently sent). We want to record our objection to any appoval of the requested variance at 14607 N CAMEO DR , SUN CITY, AZ, 85351 We believe we have standing in this case, as we live within the affected neighborhood boundaries. Our objection is two-fold: 1) The fence's extreme height and length not only excessively violates Maricopa County Building code and Sun City HOA CC&R's (which the homeowners signed), but it is also completely contrary to the Neighborhood Characteristics, thereby making the neighborhood less desirable. To say the fence is noticable from a distance is an understatement. The fencing in question is abnormal to the neighborhood. This abnormal characteristic affects the value of all homes in the neighborhood, not just the adjoining properties. As a former real estate appraiser, I can attest to this fact. 2) There are two pairs of Harris' Hawks that nest in the trees located behind the Cameo home and also in the trees just south of Boswell. These raptors use the golf course and the neighborhood to hunt for and to feed their young and themselves. We have watched this happen year after year for the last 9 years. There are also owls that hunt at night along this corridor. As such, this type of fencing is an immediate threat to the lives and health of these raptors, not to mention other birds. For the above reason's, we request that this application for a variance be rejected, and that County order the offenging fence to be removed immediately. Thank you, Michael and Helen Pianga 9439 W Newport Dr Sun City AZ 85351 928-662-8526 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. May 5, 2026 Maricopa County RE: BA260032 – Variance (Residential) – APN 200-93-644 The public hearing sign is attached to a tree in the front yard. There is only one sign in the yard. According to Maricopa County ordinance the posting shall be in no less than two places with at least one notice for each quarter mile of frontage along perimeter right-of-way so that the notices are visible from the nearest public right-of-way. The postings shall remain in place for the entire application period. Each notice shall be a minimum of six square feet in area unless combined with the public hearing notices. Inquiry #: 126655 Status: Assigned Request Date: 5/4/2026 8:26:45 AM Inquiry Type: Code Compliance Customer: James Poad Address: 14601 N Cameo Drive, Sun City, AZ, 85351 Contact Via: Email Email: poad.jim@sbcglobal.net Phone: +1 (608) 774-5429 Description: We oppose the request for Variance of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Standards and/or Regulations at 14607 N. Cameo Drive, Sun City, Arizona. We were approached by the owners of the property via email on 6/27/24. The owners indicated they were considering installing a 20 ft net for protection of the property. Our property is directly south of 14607 N. Cameo Drive, and the net was to be installed between our properties. In the email, the owners indicated the nets were approved by the HOA in Sun City. We responded to the email on 8/6/24. We indicated that we agreed there were an issue with golf balls being errantly hit and landed in our properties, but we also understood the issues with owning golf course property when we purchased the property. We also indicated a net would not be our choice for protection and that our choice would be something more aesthetically appealing like a pergola type structure. To this date we have not installed any structures for protection. We also indicated no matter what structure you installed, it would not provide 100% structure damage or physical injury. Our main issue with the net is its size and its potential impact on property values for future sales. We also believe the net would not be as big an issue if were not for the liability of guests at the property because of its AirBNB status. James M and Beth Poad Richard and Debra Poad Thomas and Gail Poad Theodore and Patricia Evans Loc. Address: 14607 N Cameo Drive, Sun City, AZ Loc. X-Streets: Rolling Hills Drive Board of Supervisors: Related By: Permit Number: Parcel Number: Edit Customer Entered By: Web Inquiry - 5/4/2026 8:26:45 AM Division: Planning Assigned To: Planning - 5/4/2026 12:32:14 PM Subject: Land Use Planning and Zoning Applications Attach Files: Choose Files No file chosen Upload Notes/Comments: Resolution/Action Assign To / Completed By: Schedule For: Notes / Comments: Assign Request Finalize Request Save Comments Invalid Request © 2026 - Maricopa County Planning and Development / Environmental Quality Department: Planning and Development Division: Planning Subject: Land Use Planning and Zoning Applications Person: Joel Landis DATE: 5/13/26 TO: Board of Adjustment From: Darren Gérard, AICP Planning Manager SUBJECT: BA260032 – Loeks Property Variance Agenda Item: 7 Since the publishing of the staff report, staff has received two additional letters of support for the proposal. Those letters are attached to this memo. Second, following publication of the staff report, the applicant contacted staff regarding a characterization in item 7, which stated that the net has had the unintended effect of redirecting several balls onto the neighboring property to the south, and that the neighbor had left those balls in his yard without raising concerns. The applicant disputes this characterization. He states the net was intentionally installed more than three feet from the property line so that balls would strike the net and drop into his yard rather than deflect onto adjacent properties. He further states he did not represent that his neighbor left deflected balls in his yard. Staff acknowledges this distinction and notes this for the Board's consideration. Staff's concern with the deflection question remains. A ball striking a net at approximately 17 feet at a 40-degree descending trajectory may or may not drop directly into the applicant's yard depending on the tension and material properties of the net. The application does not specify net tension, mesh size, or installation method with sufficient detail to verify the applicant's claim. Attachments: Conversation with applicant re: net (3 pages) Support Letters (4 pages) This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. Outlook Re: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing From Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Date Fri 5/8/2026 9:33 AM To loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Hello, Once the staff report is published, we put out handout memos for any clarifications that need to be made or otherwise if people have sent it support or opposition past the date of publishing. We received a support item for you this morning so we'd be putting out one next week as we get closer to the hearing. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 9:30 AM To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: Re: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing Thanks Joel, Will you be updating the report, or are the clarifications to the Board handled a different way? Lance On May 8, 2026 7:28 AM, "Joel Landis (PND)" <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> wrote: Hello, 5/13/26, 3:24 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBOSCgAA?deeplink=m… 1/3 My characterization of the net's effect on neighboring properties was based on the idea that a ball hitting a net at 17 feet at that trajectory isn't going to drop straight down into your yard unless the net material is loose enough to absorb the impact. I'll note your clarification for the Board, but this is something you should be prepared to address in your presentation. On the statutory tests, the golf course has been there since the neighborhood was built. Errant shots are a known condition for homes along golf course fairways, and that's true for a lot of properties in Sun City, not just yours. That's the core problem with the peculiar condition test here. Otherwise, unfortunately, it is part and parcel of living next to a golf course. I would still encourage you to reach out to Lisa Gray at SCHOA to see if there's a solution to be worked out. Approval of this variance will not stop SCHOA from pursuing whatever measures they would want as an HOA, and the County would consider this a civil matter between you as a property owner and the HOA, regardless of whether we issue a permit to resolve the violation. I'll take your request to add analysis on the unsafe condition under advisement, but I want to be upfront that it doesn't change staff's position on the statutory tests. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 3:49 PM To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: FW: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing Hello Joel, This is Lance Loeks and I am working with you regarding BA260032. I have read the Report to the Board of Adjustment and would like to bring to your attention a misunderstanding. In the staff report, item 7 states the following: “The net is intended to safely deflect balls away from the property. Since the fence was erected in fall 2025, however, it has had the unintended effect of redirecting several balls onto the neighboring property to the south. The applicant states that the neighbor has left the balls in his yard rather than returning them or raising any concerns. If approved, the variance would run with the subject property in perpetuity, meaning neighboring properties could be affected by errant balls indefinitely from the subject property. The property would also remain subject to SCHOA regulations, which apply independently of any County zoning or permitting requirements.” 5/13/26, 3:24 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBOSCgAA?deeplink=m… 2/3 The protective golf net was intentionally installed over 3 feet from the property line so the errant golf balls would hit the net and drop into the owner’s yard. I never stated the “neighbor has left the balls in his yard rather than returning them.” I’m not sure where this information came from. I did provide a photo from my neighbor’s yard showing they too have a large quantities of errant balls land in their yard. This is corroborated by my neighbor’s email statement where he says, “we agreed there were an issue with golf balls being errantly hit and landed in our properties.” My neighbor’s property to the south is the neighbor (James Poad) who wrote the email included on page 30 of the staff report. His email also makes no reference to any balls being deflected into their yard from the protective golf net. These errant golf balls in my neighbor’s yard were not deflected from the net. Thus, there is no shifting of the burden of errant golf balls from me to our neighbors (item 8 of the staff report). Please correct item 7 to remove any reference about the net deflecting several balls into the neighbor’s yard. Please update the staff report, or share with me where this impression of deflected golf balls came from so I can properly address this concern during the meeting. Lastly, I appreciate the time you took to create the report to the Board of Adjustment. It seems to focus on the property damage, however, the requested variance is about the existing ordinances creating an unsafe condition which has caused bodily injury. In the report where an analysis is made (positive or negative) of the zoning ordinance test there is no mention as to whether the protective golf net addresses the unsafe conditions. Is this something you can add? Thank you, Lance Loeks loeks@comcast.net 253-939-2744 From: noreply@permitcenter.maricopa.gov <noreply@permitcenter.maricopa.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 1:05 PM To: loeks@comcast.net Cc: Joel.Landis@Maricopa.gov Subject: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing Hello, The above case has been scheduled for public hearings. Please see the attached checklist and please let me know if you have any questions. This is a no-reply e-mail address. To contact us, please send an e-mail to Joel.Landis@Maricopa.gov 5/13/26, 3:24 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBOSCgAA?deeplink=m… 3/3 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. Always validate the sender first. Outlook Protective Golf Net From Jane Bushor <jane.bushor@cox.net> Date Mon 5/11/2026 8:23 AM To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Cc loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net>; Jane Bushor <jane.bushor@cox.net> Joel Landis I am writing in on Case BA 260032, regarding the protective golf net installed by Lance Loeks. I'm a neighbor, and I do not find the net a nuisance. The net was put up after Angie was hit by a golf ball, and there are other nets on the Palmbrook golf cource, since the Palmbrook management takes no responsibility for the damages done. Jane Bushor 9401 W. Rolling Hills 602-710-0478 Jane.Bushor@cox.net 5/13/26, 3:22 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEne%2BztQAA?deeplink=… 1/1 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. Always validate the sender first. Outlook Neighbors IN SUPPORT of the NETTING From Laine Anderson <mikeandlaineanderson@gmail.com> Date Fri 5/8/2026 8:56 AM To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Case number BA260032 Letter of Support to Homeowner — May 8th ,2026 Maricopa County Board of Adjustment Re: Support for Approval of Protective Golf Ball Safety Net To the Board of Adjustment, We are writing as neighboring homeowners to express our full support for the installation and continued use of the professional‑grade, 20‑foot golf ball safety net recently installed by our neighbor. We also wish to make clear that we, too, will require the same protective netting, as our property is experiencing the very same dangerous conditions. Our home, along with the homes on both sides of us, is being struck by golf balls daily. We have a backyard pool, and it has become a war zone with golf balls landing unpredictably and forcefully throughout the day. These projectiles strike our yard, our pool area, our home, and come dangerously close to our family and guests. The situation has escalated to the point where it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or even fatally harmed. This is not a minor inconvenience — it is a significant and ongoing safety hazard. The repeated intrusion of golf balls constitutes a clear nuisance, trespass, and a direct violation of our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. No homeowner should be forced to live in fear while using their own backyard. The net our neighbor installed is a professional, purpose‑built safety barrier. It is not an eyesore. It is: - tightly stretched, - does not flap or move in the wind, - and is 90+% transparent, similar to a window screen. 5/13/26, 3:23 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBN2cAAA?deeplink=m… 1/3 It is far less noticeable than many common backyard structures, and it is the only effective method to prevent injury and property damage. Liability Consideration We also feel it is important to note that once the Board is made aware of a foreseeable and ongoing safety hazard, and a reasonable protective measure is proposed, a denial of that measure places the Board in a position of assumed responsibility for future incidents. If homeowners are prevented from installing necessary safety protections, then any resulting injuries or property damage occur only because the Board prohibited the remedy. In today’s legal environment, it is well understood that when a governing body denies a homeowner the ability to protect their family and guests from a known hazard, the governing body may bear increased liability exposure. A homeowner gains nothing from being struck by a golf ball — but a county that knowingly denies protection after documented warnings may face significant responsibility for the consequences. Request We want to emphasize that this is not a matter of preference or aesthetics — it is a matter of safety and liability. As homeowners, we have the right and the responsibility to protect our families, our guests, and our property from foreseeable harm. The Board also has an interest in reducing liability exposure by allowing reasonable and necessary safety measures. Given the severity and frequency of the golf ball intrusions affecting multiple households, we respectfully request that the Board approve the existing 20‑foot safety net and allow similarly constructed nets for neighboring properties, including ours. This is the only practical solution to restore safe use of our backyards and uphold the fundamental right to quiet enjoyment. We appreciate your attention to this urgent matter and hope to work together toward a resolution that protects the wellbeing of all residents. Sincerely, Mike and Laine Anderson 15019 N. Cameo Dr. Sun City, AZ 85351 Laine Anderson ML-Anderson Real Estate 715.377.6350 www.mikeandlaine.com mikeandlaineanderson@gmail.com 5/13/26, 3:23 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBN2cAAA?deeplink=m… 2/3 5/13/26, 3:23 PM Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBN2cAAA?deeplink=m… 3/3 DATE: July 7, 2026 TO: Board of Adjustment From: Joel Landis, Planner SUBJECT: BA260032 – Loeks Property Variance Agenda Item: 2 Further discussions between the applicant and SCHOA have taken place since the May Board of Adjustment hearing. However, these discussions do not appear to have led to a change in SCHOAs position in the matter. Staff has compiled the conversations that have taken place since the last hearing and have attached them to this memo. Attachments: Correspondence between applicant, staff, and SCHOA (12 pages) This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. Outlook RE: Collaborative Safety Solution & Strategic Coordination - Case #BA260032 (SCHOA Incident #93553) From Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org> Date Wed 6/3/2026 2:32 PM To loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Cc Kristine Schmitz <compliancemanager@suncityhoa.org>; Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Mr. and Mrs. Loeks, Thank you for outlining the proposed compromise measures discussed in your correspondence. SCHOA appreciates your willingness to explore alternatives; however, the Association must evaluate any proposal within the scope and requirements of the governing CC&Rs. Regarding the proposed “Mesh Visibility Optimization,” while a more transparent mesh material may reduce some visual impact, it does not resolve the primary compliance concerns relating to the structure’s height, scale, detached structural nature, and placement within the setback area. Regardless of transparency, the structure remains substantially inconsistent with the applicable CC&R restrictions governing fences, walls, detached structures, and setbacks. With respect to “Landscape Integration,” additional landscaping does not cure the underlying noncompliance with the CC&Rs. SCHOA does not foresee practical landscaping options capable of meaningfully concealing a 21-foot structure of this scale. There are also existing CC&R requirements governing landscaping height and placement on golf course lots. As to the suggestion of creating “Modernized Compliance Guidelines,” SCHOA’s responsibility is to enforce the CC&Rs currently governing the property. These restrictions are binding covenants that apply uniformly throughout the community unless formally amended by the property owners. SCHOA also respectfully disagrees with the characterization that the applicable CC&R provisions are “outdated,” as the current governing CC&Rs were not created in the 1960s. The restrictions governing structure height, setbacks, and detached structures, remain enforceable standards intended to preserve consistency, aesthetics, neighborhood character, and property values throughout Sun City. While SCHOA remains willing to review compliant alternatives, the proposed measures do not presently resolve the Association’s primary concerns regarding CC&R compliance. To assist in identifying alternatives that may better align with the CC&Rs, SCHOA offers the following options for consideration: 1. Installation of a retractable awning attached to and extending from the residence to provide additional coverage over the patio area. 2. Consideration of large retractable umbrella systems or similar movable shade features within the backyard and patio areas. 3. Exploration of sun shade sail systems or other lower-profile shade solutions. In addition to the CC&R concerns, SCHOA has received complaints from surrounding property owners regarding the size, appearance, and visual impact of the structure. Because Sun City includes hundreds of homes bordering ten golf courses, approval of large-scale netting structures inconsistent with the CC&Rs could create a community-wide precedent that materially alters the open-view residential character many golf course property owners reasonably expected and relied upon when purchasing their homes. SCHOA remains available to review and provide guidance on alternative options that align with the CC&Rs. Sincerely, Lisa Gray General Manager Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 10401 West Coggins Dr. Sun City, AZ 85351 623-974-4718 Email: SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org Office Hours: Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm Friday, 9:00am - Noon Social Media: @suncityhoa From: loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:51 PM To: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org> Cc: Kristine Schmitz <compliancemanager@suncityhoa.org>; 'Joel Landis (PND)' <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: Collaborative Safety Solution & Strategic Coordination - Case #BA260032 (SCHOA Incident #93553) To: Lisa Gray, SCHOA General Manager Cc: Kristine Schmitz, SCHOA Compliance Manager Joel Landis, Maricopa County Planning & Development I am writing to initiate a collaborative, good-faith dialogue following the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment’s hearing on May 14, 2026 regarding our residential safety variance (Case #BA260032). During the proceedings, the Board recognized that our lot at 14607 N Cameo Drive is “different” because it possesses a severe, unique geographical hardship. Because our home sits on the direct exterior apex of the Palmbrook Golf Course’s 17th hole dogleg, we are subjected to a dangerous landing zone resulting in over 150 high-velocity golf ball impacts per year. The Board of Adjustment voted to approve a continuance until July 16, 2026, explicitly requesting that we contact SCHOA to explore a mutually agreeable, "win-win" safety solution. I am reaching out to fulfill that directive. My goal is to find a path forward that upholds SCHOA's community standards while fulfilling our absolute necessity to protect human life on our property. As we prepare our formal follow-up for Board Planner Joel Landis, we want to ensure the association has full visibility into the unique history and strict physical limitations governing this specific safety structure: 1. Prior Association Authorization: In June 2024, we proactively contacted SCHOA before purchasing the protective netting. The SCHOA compliance officer at the time explicitly informed us that the CC&Rs contained no active restrictions or approval requirements regarding protective golf netting. He assured us the installation was acceptable and noted that multiple other properties across Sun City utilize protective golf nets without issue. We relied heavily on this official guidance from SCHOA when investing over $8,000 in a premium, 93% transparent safety system. 2. Unavoidable Spatial & Trajectory Constraints: The Board of Adjustment requested an analysis of moving the structure into the property's standard "building envelope". Due to Maricopa County's strict 25-foot eastern setback alongside the golf course, moving the net inward would split our yard. Furthermore, golf trajectory analysis shows that a right-handed pull or hook shot crosses our property at a sharp, curving angle from the south-southeast. Relocating the net a mere 4.75 feet north to meet the 7-foot standard southern setback would provide zero reduction in the net's visual profile, and meeting the 25-foot setback completely compromises the physics-based angle required to shield our pool and patio/pergola areas. 3. Preservation of Core Community Values: Under established Arizona zoning principles (City of Phoenix v. Jachimek), the severe physical threat of 150+ flying projectiles is a hardship inherent to the land’s layout, not a self-imposed choice. This protective structure is a passive safety utility designed strictly to prevent severe bodily injury—an ongoing risk that recently resulted in a blunt-force trauma to the owner requiring six weeks of physical therapy. Protecting Sun City residents from physical harm preserves fundamental property rights and maintains long-term property values for the entire neighborhood. 4. Clarification of Land Hardship vs. Occupancy Status: In your correspondence to the Board, you asserted that the property's use as a short-term rental creates a "self-imposed hardship." Respectfully, this misinterprets established Arizona zoning law. A zoning variance is legally bound to the physicality of the land, not the identity or tenancy status of its occupants. The physical reality that our lot sits at the exterior apex of the 17th hole landing zone, receiving over 150 high-velocity golf ball impacts per year, is an immutable geographic fact. A flying projectile traveling at 75 mph poses an identical, severe physical threat to an owner, a long-term tenant, a visiting grandchild, or a short-term guest. Protecting human life from documented physical trauma is a universal safety obligation, and a dangerous geographic placement cannot be legally reclassified as a "self-imposed" business condition. Because we respect SCHOA's role in the community, we want to formally present three adaptable design modifications to the association to achieve a win-win outcome before the July 16th county hearing: Mesh Visibility Optimization: Our protective golf netting is 93 percent transparent. We are entirely willing to contact the protective golf netting contractor to determine if a more transparent mesh exists to improve how the netting blends into the Arizona sky. Landscape Integration: We are willing to discuss incorporating specific, fast-growing desert landscaping along the shared property line to soften the appearance of the support structures. Modernized Compliance Guidelines: Rather than treating highly transparent, life-saving safety mesh under outdated 1960s "fence" definitions, we would welcome the opportunity to work with SCHOA to establish modern architectural safety guidelines—similar to peer communities like Fountain Hills—to properly regulate protective netting for the small handful of apex-lot/landing zone owners who face true physical hardship. We hope that SCHOA will join us in presenting a unified, safety-first solution to Maricopa County on July 16, 2026. Because our presentation and status updates must be finalized for County staff, we kindly request a written response, counter-proposal, or confirmation of a virtual meeting date by June 12, 2026. To demonstrate our good-faith adherence to the Board of Adjustment’s directive, we will move forward by presenting collaborative proposals to the Board, alongside our golf ball trajectory analysis, to provide a viable way to ensure human safety on our property. Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedicated consideration of our family's physical safety. Sincerely, Angela and Lance Loeks Property Owners, 14607 N Cameo Drive, Sun City This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. Outlook RE: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits From loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Date Thu 6/4/2026 10:08 AM To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Thanks Joel, I agree a win-win solution with SCHOA would be preferrable. Similarly to Maricopa County the first evaluation of the netting is to assess it to the current CC&Rs. I believe some of the proposed ideas by Lisa Gray in her recent email would still not conform to the CC&Rs, which means I still need to request a variance from SCHOA’s Board of Directors. I’ll try to emphasize to the county’s Board of Adjustment that any approved variance is simply allowing the process to continue for SCHOA to review the proposal according to their variance process. In the table you provided in the email below it speaks to the envelop for primary structures and accessory structures. Please confirm that for non-residential accessory structures the setbacks are 3 feet from the side and rear, and the maximum height is 18 feet. I would like to provide as many options to the Board of Adjustment. A fence around a tennis court (outside the principal building envelop) is considered an accessory recreational structure, and I would like to offer that the golf protective netting could be considered an accessory structure. Both the tennis court fence and the golf protective netting provide similar “safety” protection from errant balls. Hopefully I will be able to clarify the difference between a fence and a fence ordinance. The fence is a structure and the ordinance is a regulation to control specific features of a structure. My argument is the regulation when developed never anticipated the safety aspect of errant golf balls since protective netting did not become standardized in golf communities until the 2000’s. Similar to the illustration you provided for fences in the front yard needing an 80% transparency, a regulation for a golf protective net higher than 8 feet in the back yard should be allowed if it meets a specific transparency rating (e.g. 90%). Please let me know if I have correctly interpreted the requirements for a non-residential accessory structure. Thank you, Lance From: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 10:03 AM To: loeks@comcast.net Subject: Re: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits Hello, Fencing/walls are per MCZO Art 811.5, and specifically in this case, 811.5.4 and 811.6. Any fence outside the principal building envelope can only be a maximum of 8'. This is what the variance is for. If you moved the fence to the principal building envelope, it could go up to 35' without a variance per 811.6. I do want to reiterate what I said previously: any structure you build without SCHOA's approval remains subject to their enforcement regardless of what the county approves. A county approval doesn't override their CC&Rs. Before putting together your July 16 presentation around a specific configuration, I'd strongly encourage you to get SCHOA's sign-off on whatever you're proposing first. Otherwise you may find yourself with a county-approved structure that SCHOA still requires you to remove. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 9:50 AM To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: RE: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits Hello Joel, Thanks again for your help. I took a look at the table of zoning development standards. I also read article 602. 3 of the ordinances, and reviewed the figures. Can you confirm I have interpreted the requirements correctly? I would Hello Joel, Thanks again for your help. I took a look at the table of zoning development standards. I also read article 602.3 of the ordinances, and reviewed the figures. Can you confirm I have interpreted the requirements correctly? I would follow the requirements for R1-6 when the netting is categorized as a “structure.” If the netting is categorized as a “primary structure” it can be up to 35 feet tall as long as it is 5 feet from the side and 25 feet from the rear. If the netting is categorized as an “accessory structure” it can be up to 18 feet tall. There are two types of accessory structures; one is for someone living there (accessory dwelling structures), and one is a non-residential structure. Since no one can live in a net, the protective golf net could fall under the requirements of a non-residential structure. This means the rear and side setbacks are 3 feet. If the netting is not categorized as a “structure”, then it would be categorized as a “fence/wall.” Outside of the buildable envelope, a fence/wall can be a maximum height of 8 feet. If this fence/wall is not in the front yard it can obstruct 100% of the view. I expect I will need to have a slide in my presentation summarizing the above requirements. Thank you for your help in confirming the proper interpretation. Lance Loeks From: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 12:09 PM To: loeks@comcast.net Subject: Re: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits Hello, Refer to MCZO Section 502. Rural & Residential Zoning Districts Development Standards in the R1-6 table under "primary structure". Fences are per MCZO Sec. 811.5.4, which indicate in order to be 35', the fence must be within the principle building envelope (ie., >= the minimum setbacks). There are no prohibitions on landscaping in rural and residential zoning districts. That said, two caveats worth keeping in mind: first, if SCHOA takes issue with specific plantings, they can pursue civil action against you independent of anything the county does or doesn't approve. Second, certain types of vegetation can affect site drainage, so whatever you plant should be consistent with HOA standards for that reason as well. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 2:16 PM To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: RE: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits Thanks Joel, I appreciate the advice and guidance. Could you please provide the setback requirements for the building envelop. I need it for the rear and side property lines so I can sketch this for the trajectory analysis. I also need to know Thanks Joel, I appreciate the advice and guidance. Could you please provide the setback requirements for the building envelop. I need it for the rear and side property lines so I can sketch this for the trajectory analysis. I also need to know the setback and height requirements for landscaping, such as trees. I will address the ball containment issue again as I imagine the concern is still there regardless if the netting is at the building envelop setback. Lastly, I am presenting the variance to the county as a request from the SCHOA Board of Directors. I know the process requires me to return to the SCHOA Board of Directors after the county makes their decision. Hopefully, our good faith effort will lead to a win-win solution with SCHOA. If Ms. Gray does not want to work collaboratively on a solution, then maybe in your recommendations to the Board of Adjustment you could acknowledge the original request from SCHOA Board of Directors and state that Ms. Gray’s concerns would be better addressed with the SCHOA Board. Thank you for your help, Lance From: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 9:19 AM To: loeks@comcast.net Subject: Re: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits Hello, To answer the Board's questions on setbacks and height limits: outside the principal building envelope, the 8' fence limit is what applies, which is where you currently stand with the violation. Inside the building envelope, structures can go up to 35 feet. That's why the Board floated relocating the net. If it can be moved into the building envelope and still do the job, that's the quickest path. You'd withdraw the variance, pull a permit for the net in its new location, and we'd be done on our end. On the bounce question, I don't have documented evidence on high-tenacity polyester mesh specifically, and I'll be honest, that's something you'll need to bring to the Board yourself. Manufacturer specs, testing data, or a physical demonstration would all work. I'd also note that the fence posts are a separate variable. They're not the same material as the mesh and would behave differently on impact, so that's worth addressing too. I do need to be direct with you about something before you go further down this road. Even if the Board approves the variance on July 16, SCHOA can still pursue enforcement against you under their CC&Rs, and a county variance does nothing to protect you from that. I spoke with Ms. Gray yesterday and their position hasn't changed. That applies not just to the net but to any structure built without HOA approval; fencing, landscaping, anything. I'm not in a position to tell you what to build if SCHOA is going to come after you for it regardless as that just creates a different problem. You need to get SCHOA on board before you do anything else. If SCHOA is fine with whatever compromise you come up with, I think the variance itself (or not needing one) would be granted without much issue. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:35 PM To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: BA260032 - Help with Setback and Height Limits Hello Joel, On May 14, 2026 the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment heard case number BA260032 for a requested variance to allow the protective golf netting on our property. The Board of Adjustment acknowledged the property is different from Hello Joel, On May 14, 2026 the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment heard case number BA260032 for a requested variance to allow the protective golf netting on our property. The Board of Adjustment acknowledged the property is different from other properties on the golf course; specifically this special circumstance is due to the property’s location on the exterior apex of the curve of the 17th hole and its distance from the tee placing the property in the golf ball’s landing zone. The Board approved a motion for a continuance to resume hearing the case on July 16th. We were requested to contact the neighbors on our southern property line and to contact Sun City Home Owners’ Association to seek their support and to see if they have any proposals for a win-win situation regarding the protective golf netting. We will be sending them an email and will cc you. The Board also asked that I contact you to get help in identifying the setback and height limits for items such as fencing, structures, and landscaping according to the property’s zoning. For example, if the protective golf netting is to be classified as a fence, which are typically located to mark property lines, then how close to the property line may it be located and how high? If the protective golf netting is classified as a generic structure, what are the height limits and do these limits change depending on whether the structure is in the setback? Are trees allowed in the setback as a natural barrier and what are these limits (see picture)? We have no intention of adding landscaping as a natural barrier because compared to the netting it is less effective in stopping balls and far less transparent. However, if the Board is looking for options which conform to the ordinances this may be one to share, depending on what is allowed. It was suggested by the Board that the netting could be relocated and I will be able to use the information you provide as to whether conforming to the ordinances will protect the safety of the owners or whether a variance is still required. I would also like to ask about a recommendation from Darren Gerard’s email sent after the Board of Adjustment case. He stated, “You can also demonstrate succinctly if golf balls blocked from your yard rather than bouncing off simply drop down and the proposed 3’+ setback is sufficient.” My research on the high-tenacity polyester mesh shows the golf ball’s kinetic energy will be transferred into the net not causing it to “bounce.” Are you aware of any documented evidence about the “bounce” effect on our high-tenacity polyester mesh? My neighbor’s email included in your staff report makes no mention of excessive balls bouncing into their property. SCHOA’s letter included in your staff report states my neighbor’s property has experienced an increase in golf balls entering its yard, but makes no reference to whether the neighbor actually made this statement. Their letter states that SCHOA reviewed the variance request and I wonder if their opinion is due to a misunderstanding of the photo showing the protective golf netting which includes some of my neighbor’s back yard. Our neighbors are seasonal residents and were out of town for an extended period when this photo was taken. The golf balls visible in their yard were not "bounced" off our safety net; they are the direct result of errant tee shots landing unhindered in their yard during their absence. You also stated in your email to me, “My characterization of the net's effect on neighboring properties was based on the idea that a ball hitting a net at 17 feet at that trajectory isn't going to drop straight down into your yard unless the net material is loose enough to absorb the impact.” Because you did not know the netting was made from high-tenacity polyester you may have been unaware of its ability transfer nearly all of the ball’s kinetic energy into the net. To respond to Darren’s comment during the next Board of Adjustment meeting I need to know if in fact there is any documented evidence of bouncing balls. Obviously, it makes little sense to spend a lot of money to move a protective golf net a couple of feet if there is no benefit in its size or containment of golf balls. Please share with me any objective facts you may have. Thank you for your help, Lance Loeks loeks@comcast.net 253-939-2744